Letters

‘Climate Expert’ is a myth

Ed,

Initiated by Oscar Tamsen’s thoughtfully expressed letter, a flood of opinion has covered a diverse range of both knowledge and literary style, and indeed political alliance. I would like to address some of the matters raised.

I stand by the content of my previous correspondence. I have been misquoted, accused of derogation, and it has been inferred I represent coal oil and gas interests. I have never been an employee or contracted to, nor held shares in, any company engaged in those pursuits. The nature of my work is technical, not representation or commercial.

I prefer the terms Naturally Changing Climate and Man-Made Global Warming which, unlike ‘Climate Change’ are both unambiguous; and climate is always changing.

The salient fact of climate science is that there is no evidence, repeat No Evidence, of changing climate caused by human activity.

‘Climate Expert’ is a myth. No one person can be expert in all the scientific and technical fields of study required to understand the very complex subject of climate. It requires the expertise of a great many people from widely diverse scientific disciplines to obtain useful answers from climate research; and reliance on non-scientific opinion is irrelevant.

Science is never settled. Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. Despite the use of enormous resources, the human causation theory is neither proven nor disproven; it is unproven and likely to remain so.

Carbon dioxide, critically essential to maintaining life, is popularly thought to be the cause of global warming, and as such the crux of the man-made global warming misapprehension. Proven scientific research is that temperature rise always precedes CO2 increase, therefore related to the CO2 assumption, cause and effect are contrary to logical expectation.

Relative to coal or gas, electrical energy costs are over double for wind generation and over five times for solar. Both are supplementary sources, neither base load nor on-demand.

To support a particular line of comment, incontrovertible evidence was sought. Presumably, there’d be similar entitlement supporting a contrary view. Incontrovertible is a big ask. Science is ongoing. That which appeared relevant may become eclipsed. Nevertheless, here’s a reference worthy of your attention. ISBN 9780646902180 or ISBN 9781742983189.

In that document, written by scientists and presented in layman’s terms, you’ll find all the answers to scientific procedural checks and balances, greenhouse theory, long and short-term climate history, climate projections, ever changing glaciers ice caps and sea level; (and as an aside ocean acidification is a contradiction. The oceans are alkaline).

A large group of eminent climate scientists, sufficiently concerned with recent propaganda, sent to the UN Secretary General, a letter headed ‘There is No Climate Emergency’. Surely there’s no point attacking me for criticizing that very slogan.

Science is not about seeking evidence to prop up political opinion, it is formulation and testing of theory. Accurate results are the only goal. Definition of sceptic is ‘one who maintains doubt’, an essentially cautious attitude of all research scientists. It is not an alternative or an adjunct to the oft used pejorative, denier.

Just as it is incorrect to attribute changing climate to human activity, and a subsequent perceived need to repair the damage, it is presumptuous to assume that humans have the ability to override the planet’s natural heat sinks in pursuit of such an endeavor.

Unrelated to climate, there is certainly undesirable impact by humans on nature. The problem is over-population, well-illustrated in the Independent 09/12/2020 ‘Grin Bin’ cartoon.

From a published ‘four basic and vital needs’ listing, three essentials are missing – animal vegetable and mineral. All animal life depends on at least one as its food source. Humans depend on all three. For most of us the days of hunter gathering, or agrarian survival are long gone. We are now, most of us, ‘specialists’ with a range of in-demand skills, earning reward with which to buy life’s essentials. In these times of over-population there’s no other way.

All mining outside the Clarence catchment is in somebody else’s catchment: and without jobs there can be no disposable income, without which there can be no tourism. It is well to have high ideals but without a measure of pragmatism we’re doomed to fail as a species.

I have deliberately delayed addressing misconception and criticism by other correspondents in the interest of not unnecessarily prolonging repetitious argument. Malign me if you must, I’ll not be responding further.

 

Ray Smith, Iluka and Darwin

X